ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Insurer Refuses to Shoulder Costs in Suit--------------------------------------------------------------One of Abercrombie & Fitch Co.'s insurers stated that its litigation defense costs would not be covered under a liability insurance policy stemming from several class actions over alleged false and misleading statements that affected the company's stock price, according to one of the company's insurer, Kevin Kemper of BizJournals reports.

Warren, New Jersey-based Federal Insurance Co. is refusing to cover defense costs related to the 2005 lawsuits, which were consolidated into one. The now consolidated case could put the company on the hook for tens of millions of dollars based on the average settlement of shareholder class action lawsuits.

The consolidated lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 13, 2006).

Initially several suits were launched, the first being, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.," which was filed on Sept. 2, 2005. The suit also named as defendants the company's officers.

In September and October 2005, five other purported class actions were subsequently filed against the company and other defendants in the same court.

All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported class actions into the first case was filed by some of the plaintiffs. The company joined in that motion.

On Mar. 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice, discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2006 and the responses of defendants are due on Oct. 13, 2006.

The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al. Vase No. 2:05-cv-00819-EAS-TPK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with referral to Judge Terence P. Kemp.

ALLIED MUTUAL: Policyholders to Get $100M From Iowa Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------Judge Donna Paulsen of the Polk County District Court approved final orders earlier this month that resolved Iowa's largest-ever settlement of a class action that was filed against Allied Mutual Insurance, The Des Moines Register reports.

Some 70,000 policyholders will get a cut of the $100 million payout thanks in part to the final orders.

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 by Allied policyholders who were disgruntled over its merger with Ohio-based Nationwide Insurance. They claimed that Allied had transferred many of the assets from the portion of the business.

The suit had claimed that the policyholder-owned company improperly transferred many of the assets from the portion of the business that was owned by policyholders to a sister entity that was owned by stockholders, the publicly held Allied Group of Des Moines. Both Allied companies were sold to Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. in 1998 for $1.57 billion (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2005).

Policyholders of Allied Mutual received $110 million from Nationwide at the time of the sale. They sued though to collect more in a case that went through five judges and saw seven appeals to the Iowa Supreme Court.

After all the legal wrangling, both sides finally agreed in July 2005 to a settlement that would have Nationwide pay a minimum of $100 million and a maximum of $135 million more to Allied Mutual customers who owned policies as of February 18, 1993.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs then had to try to contact as many as 300,000 eligible policyholders who would share in the settlement.

Touted as the on of Iowa's largest-ever settlement of a class action, which was approved last October, its payout fund of $100 million to $135 million has still drawn scant attention from potential recipients as of the Jan. 10, 2006 deadline. In fact, the process took so that several thousand claims trickled in after the deadline.

Individuals, who owned policies as of February 18, 1993, are eligible for the settlement. But, so far, only 65,000 out of the estimated 300,000 have stepped forward. Payouts depend on how long policyholders had coverage and how much they paid for it. If all 300,000 make claims, the average cash payout will be around $300 to $400 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).

Tom Waterman, a Davenport attorney who helped in the case against Allied and Nationwide, said that claims will be honored if they arrived by Aug. 31. He said there would be 70,155 claims honored, and that payments will range from perhaps $1,000 to as much as $40,000 for commercial policyholders.

"It should roughly be equal to the amount of premium they paid for the three years from 1990 to 1993," according to Mr. Waterman. By late November, Mr. Waterman said checks should be sent to eligible policyholders.

AXIS CAPITAL: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Judge Richard J. Holwell of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a consolidated securities class action against AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. and three of its senior officers, John R. Charman, Michael A. Butt and Andrew Cook, the Courthouse News Service reports.

Also named defendants in the suit are underwriters Morgan Stanley & Co., and Citigroup Global Markets, and a "substantial indirect shareholder of Axis," Marsh & McClennan Co.

Defendants sought summary judgment and Judge Holwell granted it without prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim.

"While the Court is uncertain that plaintiffs can readily cure the deficiencies in their Complaint, plaintiffs are granted leave to attempt to do so," the judge said in his ruling. The judge gave them 30 days to refile.

Earlier, two suits initially filed against the company relate to dealings being investigated by the Attorney General of the state of New York and other state regulators (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2006).

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities during the period between Aug. 6, 2003 and Oct. 14, 2004. The complaints charge AXIS and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints further allege that during the class period, defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's results and operations.

The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the class period, are allegedly:

(1) that the company was paying illegal and concealed "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal "contingent commission agreements;"

(2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants violated applicable principles of fiduciary law, subjecting the company to enormous fines and penalties totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars; and

(3) that as a result, the company's prior reported revenue and income was grossly overstated.

The suit alleges securities violations in connection with the failure to disclose payments made pursuant to contingent commission arrangements and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On May 13, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated complaint and added as defendants the managing underwriters and one of the selling shareholders in the company's secondary offering completed in March 2004.

BARTER FRAUD: Victims of Merchants Exchange Fraud Hires Lawyer--------------------------------------------------------------More than a hundred recent victims of barter exchange fraud is being organized into Victims of Barter Fraud, a volunteer organization dedicated to warning other business owners, alerting state and federal authorities, and seeking refunds of moneys swindled.

Mark Johnson, the acting chairman stated: "The first order of business is to locate any and all other victims of the MBE gang and other similar scams and that is the purpose of this release. Anyone who was tricked into buying a worthless barter exchange franchise or license, or was cheated out of merchandise, or had phony barter exchanges steal their credit and banking information is urged to contact us immediately at 778-235-4343."

The 115 merchants being organized have chipped in $1,000 each to hire a private investigator and a Boston lawyer specializing in class action. "We are determined to find the people who scammed us out of almost $5 million dollars and will not give up until we know their real names and they are arrested or return our money" added Roberto Diaz, of Miami, who is helping to organize the victims.

David Glaser, Peter Horvath, and Rick Ceballos are three victims who are especially angry after learning all three paid $75,000 each to purchase the very same "exclusive MBE territory" of Las Vegas. "We want our money back," said Mr. Glaser.

Paul Gibson of San Francisco, who is also helping the victims, further explained "All but four of us were swindled by the same bogus barter network only known as "MBE" which we now know is a mobile operation moving back and forth between Morristown N.J., Mt. Pocono, and Manhattan, N.Y. Although we met with the same 3 or 4 MBE sales people, they gave all us different names and 800 phone numbers".

"Yeah, the guy I met said his name was "Steve Bowles" but he told other business owners the very same week that his name was "Chris Mitchell" and "Scott Brecker" and another MBE rep went by names of "Kyle Lang" "Seth Lang" and "Phillip Stone". We can't trace these guys past the 800 numbers but we see that they are now advertising and operating in Hawaii, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas, and their franchises in Buffalo, Vancouver, Houston, Fort Myers, Orlando, and Indianapolis have all shut down while their beautiful http://www.barterforbetterbusiness.comWeb site is no longer operational. Hopefully, this private investigator can catch up with them soon before they flee the country with our money" added Mr. Johnson.

In the interim, the group is investing another $10,000 from their kitty to send out another 25,000 "anti-fraud chain letters" and 50 million of the same by e-mail..."

"Hopefully we can alert every merchant in America within the next 30 days so they are not caught off-guard like we were" explained Johnson who worries that "Once everyone is warned about MBE, they could just easily change their name and keep scamming merchants so it's important that business owners know what to watch out for". So far the victims have sent out 50,000 of the chain letters and vow to prosecute and sue the parties once their real identities are determined.

CALIFORNIA: "Williams" Settlement Boon For San Joaquin Schools--------------------------------------------------------------The settlement of the class action, "Eliezer Williams v. State of California," which accuses California of not looking out for all its schools equally came as a godsend for schools in San Joaquin County, The Record reports.

In Delta Island Elementary School for instance, the settlement resulted in new bathrooms, new septic tank and new filtration system to pipe in safe drinking water.

According to Denise Sanchez, who teaches fifth grade at the school, it means a lot to them that someone's looking out for the school.

Originally filed in 2000 and better known as the Williams case, the suit alleged that the state wasn't providing enough resources to the state's neediest students.

Court papers told tales of vermin-ridden classrooms, students without textbooks and classes without qualified teachers. Students most likely to be affected were poor, nonwhite or English language learners.

In 2004, the state settled, agreeing to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to repair buildings and buy textbooks for struggling schools.

Schools in San Joaquin County have reaped millions of dollars for textbooks and are just beginning to tap into $800 million available to schools across the state to make emergency fixes to old facilities.

More than 2,100 schools of the state's lowest-performing schools were included in the settlement of the class action, according to the California Department of Education.

In districts across San Joaquin County, more than 60 schools qualified for the settlement. Delta Island School is one of three schools in the Tracy Unified school district.

Denise Wakefield, district facilities director, said that the $500,000 cost of Delta Island School improvement is to be reimbursed by the state once the construction is finished.

Other districts have similar projects in the works and have applied for reimbursement from the state. For its part, Manteca Unified School District has made at least $70,000 worth of repairs to its affected schools, including replacing an old wall at Lincoln Elementary School in Manteca. Lodi Unified has applied for $40,000 worth of repair funds, according to the state Office of Public School Construction.

Rhonda Cicolani, director of school equity for the San Joaquin County Office of Education, said that more districts would be applying for money when they complete their projects.

And it will be easier come January, when legislation goes into effect that allows affected schools to get money before they start repair projects.

The settlement also calls for more oversight of affected schools, and the county office fills that role. Gary Dei Rossi, assistant superintendent of education for the county office explains that once a year a team of retired principals visits each school to inspect the safety of facilities and count textbooks.

The Williams settlement included a one-time payment of $98 per student in certain schools for textbooks, which translated to $3.5 million for schools in the county, the California Department of Education revealed.

Stockton Unified School District used money from that fund to adopt new textbooks and buy replacement books at its Williams schools, according to Robert Sahli, administrator of instructional technology.

Brooks Allen, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, which was involved in the original case said that though its taken longer than hoped for schools to start using money to make repairs, the settlement is accomplishing what it was meant to accomplish.

And not only students from schools will benefit from the settlement, Mr. Allen adds. "The goal of Williams from the very beginning was to make sure that students are guaranteed the most basic education necessities. The standards, themselves ... those apply to all schools," he said.

CANADA: Quebec Private School Faces Suit Over Abuse Allegations---------------------------------------------------------------Bishop's College in Quebec's Eastern Townships faces a purported CAD$58-million ($51,599,316.56) class action that alleges a teacher at the private school sexually assaulted students nearly half a century ago, CBC News reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of a former student, now residing in Vancouver. The student alleges that he was repeatedly fondled and spanked by an Anglican minister who was a teacher at Bishop's College School in Lennoxville in the 1960s.

The unnamed class action petitioner said he was a 16-year-old student in 1962 when the alleged abuse started. He believes the same suspect around the same period of time harassed other students.

According to David Stenason, the chairman of the college's board of directors, the teacher, who was with the school from 1953 to 1962, was also the school chaplain and the choir director. He apparently died in a train crash in England in 1967.

Commenting on the allegations of multiple victims, Mr. Stenason said he wasn't clear how many students are involved actually in the lawsuit. However, he pointed out that that it was not important at this point.

The college is now reviewing the files on the teacher and students named in the class action to see how much information they can gather.

CANADA: Workers Reimburse Montreal Passengers for Illegal Strike----------------------------------------------------------------As part of an agreement that settled a class action brought against maintenance workers with Montreal's Transit Authority, regular passes will cost $2 less in November, while reduced rate passes for seniors and students will be reduced by $1, according to CBC News.

The compensation is a part of a settlement of a class action that was launched by a group of passengers launched in the fall of 2003. The suit was triggered by the massive delays across the city caused by an illegal strike by the maintenance workers.

Under an out-of-court settlement, the union representing the authority's maintenance workers, which is affiliated with the Confederation des syndicats nationaux, agreed to pay CAD$925,000 ($822,992.26).

Most of that money will help offset the one-time reduction on passes, while the rest of the settlement money will help pay attorneys and court costs.

DORAL FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court to Hear Motions in Securities Suit-------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hear on Dec. 14, 2006 both parties' motions in the consolidated securities class action against Doral Financial Corp., according to its Oct. 23, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006.

The company and certain of its officers and directors and former officers and directors, were named as defendants in 18 purported class actions filed between April 20, 2005 and June 14, 2005 over allegations of federal securities laws violations.

Sixteen of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and two were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

These lawsuits were brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Doral Financial securities as early as May 15, 2000 and as late as May 26, 2005.

They allege primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading statements during the class period, failing to disclose material information concerning the valuation of the company's IOs, and misleading investors as to Doral's vulnerability to interest rate increases.

The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has transferred the two actions that were not initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to that court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions previously filed there before Judge Richard Owen.

On Feb. 8, 2006, Judge Owen entered an order appointing the West Virginia Investment Management Board as lead plaintiff and approving the selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On June 22, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging securities fraud during the period between March 15, 2000 and Oct. 25, 2005, based on allegations similar to those noted above, as well as based on the reversal of certain transactions entered into by Doral Financial with other Puerto Rico financial institutions and on weaknesses in Doral Financial's control environment as described in the company's amended annual report on Form 10-K/ A for 2004.

On Sept. 15, 2006, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint based on contentions that, as a matter of law, the allegations of the amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Pursuant to the scheduling order currently in effect, the lead plaintiff has until Oct. 30, 2006, to oppose the motions, defendants have until Dec. 4, 2006, to file reply memoranda in support of their motions, and the court is scheduled to hear the motions on Dec. 14, 2006.

ENRON CORP: Tex. Judge Overturns Conviction of Kenneth Lay---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sim Lake of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas vacated the conviction of former Enron Corp. chief executive, Kenneth Lay, and dismissed the indictment that was filed against him in 2004, reports say.

Judge Lake cited in his ruling a decision in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that makes a defendant's death before his or her appeals have been exhausted grounds for voiding a conviction and dismissing an indictment.

Mr. Lay, 64, died of coronary artery disease in July more than a month after he and another former Enron chief executive, Jeffrey Skilling, were found guilty of hiding financial troubles at Enron.

Mr. Lay's lawyers are expected to file a motion to release the $5 million bond posted after the jury found him guilty. The bonds are secured by the mortgages of homes owned by three of his children.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the ruling thwarts the government's attempt through a criminal proceeding to seize assets from Mr. Lay's estate, but it doesn't preclude the government from doing the same through a civil action.

Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling are defendants in a class action brought by Enron shareholders and employees.

Case Background

On April 8, 2002, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP filed a consolidated class action against Enron Corp. in the U.S. District Court in Houston. The suit seeks relief for purchasers of Enron publicly traded equity and debt securities between Oct. 19, 1998 and Nov. 27, 2001.

The consolidated complaint charges certain Enron executives and directors, its accountants, law firms, and banks with violations of the federal securities laws and alleges that defendants engaged in massive insider trading while making false and misleading statements about Enron's financial performance.

Shareholders in the company lost billions after Enron revealed in late 2001 it would incur losses of at least $1 billion and would restate its financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and the first two quarters of 2001, to correct errors that inflated Enron's net income by $591 million.

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al. (4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.

FIRST UNION: Nov. 6 Hearing Set for Ask Jeeves Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will hold a fairness hearing Nov. 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter: "Nicholas LaGrasta and Demenico LaGrasta, et al. v. Wachovia Capital Markets, as successor to First Union Securities, Inc., Case No. 2:01-cv-00251-JES-DNF."

The hearing will be held before Judge John E. Steele in Courtroom A of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, U.S. Courthouse and Federal Bldg., 2110 First Street, Ft. Myers, Florida 33901.

Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Feb. 7, 2007. The settlement provides for a payment of between $0.05 and $2.00 per share for purchases of Ask Jeeves stock between Nov. 18, 1999 and May 16, 2000.

The case covers all purchasers of the common stock of Ask Jeeves, Inc. between Nov. 18, 1999 and May 16, 2000. According to a Press Release dated June 14, 2002, the second amended complaint asserts a cause of action for violations of Sections 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The second amended complaint alleges that defendant First Union Securities, Inc. omitted from the reports and recommendations issued by its analysts on Ask Jeeves information regarding conflicts of interest caused by First Union Securities' inconsistent roles as an investment banker competing for Ask Jeeves' business and as a investment advisor and retail securities broker rendering allegedly unbiased advice and opinions on Ask Jeeves for the use and benefit of investors.

As alleged in the second amended complaint, this conflict resulted in the issuance of false and misleading analyst reports, which resulted in a fraud on the market and on Class members.

GRISTEDE'S OPERATING: Faces New FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.---------------------------------------------------------------Gristede's Operating Corp., which owns Gristede's supermarkets, faces allegations by former employees that the grocery store chain violated civil rights laws by segregating women into lower-paying jobs and failing to promote them to management positions.

Named plaintiffs in the suit are Vanessa Hill and Margaret Anderson, both of the Bronx. Both women worked as part-time cashiers at Gristede's in Manhattan. Ms. Hill worked for Gristede's from February 1999 to January 2004, and Ms. Anderson worked there from November 2004 to December 2004.

They allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the Complaint, Gristede's steers female job applicants into cashier and bookkeeper positions, while steering male applicants into clerk positions.

It further alleges that Gristede's offers the clerks more opportunities for extra hours, full-time work, and promotion to management than it offers to cashiers and bookkeepers.

The law firm of Outten & Golden LLP will seek to have the case certified as a class action that includes current and former female employees of Gristede's.

Attorney Piper Hoffman, of Outten & Golden, said, "We allege that the discrimination has been company-wide and pervasive. We believe the evidence will show that Gristede's intentionally segregates women into positions that pay less and keeps them out of management." Hoffman estimates that the lawsuit could include more than 3,000 women.

The suit is "Hill v. Gristede's Operating Corp.," Case No. 06 CV 10197 LTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

MCLEODUSA INC: Nov. 29 Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 29, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. for the proposed $30 million settlement in the matter, "In Re McLeodUSA Incorporated Securities Litigation, Case No. C02-0001-MWB."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa courthouse in Sioux City, Iowa.

Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made by Nov. 15, 2006. Deadline for submission of claim form is on Jan. 16, 2007.

The settlement covers:

-- all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired McLeodUSA common stock during the period from and including January 3, 2001 through and including Dec. 3, 2001, and were damaged thereby; and

-- all persons who acquired McLeodUSA common stock pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with McLeodUSA's June 1, 2001 stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan, Inc., and were damaged thereby.

Case Background

At the beginning of the class period, McLeodUSA was an ambitious competitive local exchange carrier, which competed with traditional phone companies by leasing lines, switches and capacity.

According to McLeodUSA, it provided "selected telecommunications services to customers nationwide." In addition, McLeodUSA planned to establish a national voice and data network and had begun its national expansion through the acquisition of Splitrock Services, Inc., CapRock Communications Corp., and Intelispan, Inc., when this lawsuit was commenced.

Specifically, the lawsuit asserted that the defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements and omissions including, among other things:

-- that McLeodUSA failed to timely and properly recognize hundreds of millions of dollars in impairment losses in connection with certain acquisitions;

-- that McLeodUSA did not have the funds necessary to complete its national network and would soon have to abandon its plans;

-- that McLeodUSA was unable to service its substantial debt and lacked the financial flexibility necessary to avoid bankruptcy; and

-- that McLeodUSA was unable to successfully integrate the Splitrock and CapRock acquisitions.

The lawsuit further alleged that defendants' misrepresentations caused the price of McLeodUSA securities to be artificially inflated, causing damage to the class members when McLeodUSA began to disclose its true financial condition.

The lawsuit seeks money damages against the defendants for violations of the federal securities laws. The defendants deny Lead Plaintiffs' allegations.

On and after Jan. 11, 2002, thirteen class action complaints were filed against McLeodUSA and/or certain of McLeodUSA's present or former officers and directors - Clark E. McLeod, Stephen C. Gray, J. Lyle Patrick and Chris A. Davis, on behalf of a class of public investors who either:

-- acquired McLeodUSA common stock pursuant to the Registration and Prospectus issued in connection with McLeodUSA's stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan, Inc. By order dated April 16, 2002, the court consolidated all thirteen cases, selected lead plaintiffs, and approved lead plaintiffs' choice of counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on June 17, 2002. McLeodUSA was not named as a defendant in the Complaint due to its filing for bankruptcy in January 2002.

As stated above, the complaint alleged that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and financial condition including, among other things, McLeodUSA's plan to build a national network, the purported successful integration of Splitrock Services, Inc. and CapRock Communications Corp., McLeodUSA's financial forecasts and results, whether McLeodUSA's financial statements had been prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and whether or not McLeodUSA expected to file for bankruptcy.

The complaint also alleged that defendants' misrepresentations artificially inflated the value of McLeodUSA securities, injuring McLeodUSA shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock at inflated prices during the class period when the true state of affairs became known.

On Aug. 30, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition memorandum on Nov. 4, 2002, and Defendants filed their reply memorandum on Nov. 22, 2002.

The court issued a report and recommendation denying defendants' motion to dismiss on April 30, 2003. Both Parties submitted responses to the report, and on March 31, 2004 the court accepted the findings of the report and denied defendants' motion in full. On May 3, 2004, defendants filed their answers to the complaint.

Thereafter, in the spring of 2004, lead plaintiffs initiated merits discovery. This discovery was extremely complicated and contentious, involving many motions to compel and numerous hearings before the court.

The lead plaintiffs conducted extensive written discovery, serving multiple sets of formal document requests and interrogatories, and many subpoenas on third-parties.

As a result of the wide-ranging discovery efforts, Lead Plaintiffs obtained and analyzed over 2.4 million pages of documents produced by McLeodUSA, the Defendants and third parties. The parties also deposed ten witnesses in locations throughout the U.S.

As discovery was ongoing, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to loss causation, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, 125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005). Each of these motions was fully briefed by the parties.

In the interim, on Oct. 28, 2005, McLeodUSA filed its second voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and the Action was stayed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision.

The court lifted the stay on March 16, 2006 pursuant to a motion filed with the court. Lead plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification, and defendants filed a new motion for judgment on the pleadings. These motions were fully briefed and pending at the time the parties reached the tentative agreement to resolve the action.

The Parties first discussed the possibility of settling the Action in June 2002. However, it was obvious at that time that they were too far apart to reach agreement, and it was not until Nov. 17, 2003 that the Parties again met to discuss a resolution.

Thereafter, the parties participated in three formal mediation sessions - on July 28, 2004 and Sept. 22, 2005 with the assistance of the Honorable Nicholas H. Politan (Ret.) and on May 3, 2006 with the assistance of the Honorable Herbert Stettin. It was shortly after this third mediation session that the parties reached the basic terms of the settlement.

MOTOROLA INC: Faces Ark. Litigation Over Bluetooth Headsets-----------------------------------------------------------Attorney James McHugh, of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, against Motorola Inc., over allegations that it has put the hearing of consumers at risk by selling headsets that could cause hearing losses, the Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of Little Rock legal assistant Hayley Frye, alleges the Bluetooth technology used on the headsets is defective in design and the company doesn't adequately warn users they could suffer a hearing loss.

The suit claims that because the Bluetooth headsets are fastened around just one ear, ambient noise absorbed by the other ear forces users to turn up the headsets volume to dangerously high decibel levels, to hear through them.

Bluetooth radio technology permits wireless communication between two devices, such as a cellular phone and a headset, the report said.

Motorola spokeswoman, Juli Burda, said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

The case is the fourth one alleging similar claims that was filed in October against the company.

That case is "Alpert v. Motorola, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-05586," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The second case against Motorola was filed in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois. The named plaintiff in the suit is Aleksandra Spevacek, a Cook County resident (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006).

The third case is "Edwards v. Motorola, Inc., Case No. 8:06-cv-01909-SDM-MSS," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2006).

The suit is "Frye v. Motorola Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-01533-JMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge James M. Moody.

NEW YORK: Appeals Court Remands Suit by Disabled Preschool Kids---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denying plaintiffs' motion in "D.D. v. New York City Board of Education," for a preliminary injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The district court had denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction requiring New York City and the State of New York to provide immediately to all members of the plaintiff class all services required by their Individualized Education Programs that have been put in place under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Three New York City preschool children with disabilities filed a class action alleging, inter alia, that the New York City Department of Education and the New York State Education Department violated their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.A. Section 1400-1482.

In particular, plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to provide them immediately with the educational services mandated by their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) under the IDEA. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction ordering defendants to implement all services required by the IEPs immediately. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the motion.

The district court based its denial of the preliminary injunction in principal part on its determination that former section 1416(a), which required participating states to "comply substantially" with the provisions of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C.A. section 1416(a) (West 2000), amended by 20 U.S.C.A. section 1416 (West Supp. 2005)," raised some question as to whether defendants can be held to an absolute standard of timely providing services to 100 percent of preschool children with IEPs."

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that in evaluating whether they were entitled to a preliminary injunction, the district court incorrectly used a "substantial compliance" standard to assess the Defendants' obligation to meet plaintiffs' rights.

They contend the IDEA confers upon them and all disabled children the right to a "free appropriate public education," and the Act's requirement to "comply substantially" with its provisions applies only to the states' entitlement to continue receiving federal funds.

The appeals court judges said they agree that the IDEA provides plaintiffs the right to a free appropriate public education. They also agree that the district court erred in using the "substantial compliance" standard to determine whether plaintiffs could prove that right was being denied.

They disagree, however, with plaintiffs' assertion that their right to a free appropriate public education entitles them to receive the required educational services immediately upon development of their IEPs or within a specific time thereafter.

Instead, the judges hold that the right to a free appropriate public education entitles plaintiffs to their IEP-mandated services "as soon as possible" after the IEPs have been developed.

Because the district court applied the wrong legal standard, the judges vacate that portion of the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and remand it for reconsideration under the proper legal standard.

The named plaintiffs are three disabled New York City preschool students whose IEPs have been determined. After named plaintiffs received their IEPs, the DOE placed them on a list referred to as the "PN" list, a waiting list for students who have received IEPs, but for whom educational services cannot be found immediately.

On June 16, 2003, the named plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on behalf of "all present and future New York City preschool children with IEPs who have not or will not receive all of the services recommended in their IEPs."

On March 30, 2004, the district court issued a Memorandum and Order granting class certification, but denying the preliminary injunction.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Motley Rice Announces Injury Claims Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------Motley Rice, LLC, announced that an agreement-in-principal by way of a proposed class action settlement has been reached with Norfolk Southern Corp. (NSC) that would provide compensation for personal injury claims associated with the railroad's January 6, 2005 derailment and chemical spill in Graniteville, S.C.

Joe Rice, the Motley Rice member who led the negotiations, stated, "We are proud that we were able to make this settlement happen. The residents of Graniteville have had their life disrupted and are entitled to compensation now and to not have to wait while their cases work their way through the judicial system."

The proposed settlement will provide varying levels of compensation to people who were injured and who received medical treatment, or were hospitalized as a result of the derailment and subsequent release of chlorine.

The agreement is for claims that were not part of the prior class action settlement approved last year covering property damage, evacuation expenses and losses, and minor personal injuries.

The parties expect to file the motion papers for preliminary approval by the Court in November.

NORTH CAROLINA: Class to Receive $480T in Bankruptcy Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------- J. Rich Leonard, chief bankruptcy judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, approved a bankruptcy settlement plan for the South Brunswick Water and Sewer Authority that calls for taxpayers or plaintiffs in a class action to receive almost $500,000, according to a report by Laura Lewis of The Brunswick Beacon.

Under the plan, an estimated $1.1 million in SBWSA's remaining assets will be divided among taxpayers, creditors and administrative costs, as:

-- taxpayers or plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit will receive about $480,000 to be divvied in two payment periods starting in mid-November;

-- 10 creditors and claimants will split $370,000; and

-- $250,000 will be allotted for legal and administrative expenses.

SBWSA was launched in 1993 to develop a regional sewage treatment system involving Brunswick County and the incorporated towns of Calabash and Sunset Beach. Afterwards, a local environmental group took legal action against SBWSA's discharge permits in 1995, forcing SBWSA to implement stormwater management program as well.

In the same year, SBWSA's former customers filed a class action claiming the stormwater fees they paid between 1994 and 2003 were misused by the authority. It sought damages on claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary trust, unfair and deceptive trade practice and negligent misrepresentation against the former utility.

Judge Leonard awarded class settlements in the class in May. In his order, he wrote that while SBWSA did not use the money on illegal activities, it, however, failed to apply them to statutorily authorized purposes.

OHIO: Plaintiff in Lawsuit Against Lethal Injection Executed------------------------------------------------------------Jeffrey Lundgren, who was recently permitted to join a class action filed by other inmates who claim Ohio's use of lethal injection violates their constitutional rights, was executed by lethal injection on Oct. 24, News-Herald.com reports.

Judge Gregory Frost of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio stayed on Oct. 17 the execution of Mr. Lundgren, initially delaying the Oct. 24 execution.

Mr. Lundgren, 56, was convicted of fatally shooting the Dennis Avery family of Madison in 1989, was allowed to join a class action filed by five other death row inmates challenging Ohio's lethal injection as a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Judge Frost said in his ruling that evidence has emerged that questions whether inmates are harmed if the injected drug does not stop their breathing within one minute, according to The Plain Dealer.

"It appears that potential flaws identified in Ohio's lethal injection . . . give rise to the unacceptable risk of violating" their rights," Frost wrote in the 14-page opinion, the report said.

After the ruling, the Ohio Attorney General's Office asked the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to allow the execution to go forward. Late on Oct. 23, a three-judge panel lifted the stay of execution. Mr. Lundgren's attorneys then filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, but was refused a hearing.

SEARS ROEBUCK: Dec. 8 Hearing Set for $215M Stock Suit Agreement----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 8, 2006 for the proposed $215,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Sears, Roebuck and Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 C 07527."

Any objections to the settlement must be made by Nov. 20, 2006. Deadline for submission of claim form is on Jan. 5, 2007.

The suit covers all purchasers of the securities of Sears, Roebuck and Co. between Oct. 24, 2001 and Oct. 17, 2002.

The consolidated amended class action complaint for violations of federal securities laws dated June 16, 2003 filed in the action generally alleges, among other things, that Defendants issued materially false and misleading press releases and other statements regarding Sears' financial condition during the class period - Oct. 24, 2001 through and including Oct. 17, 2002 - in a scheme to artificially inflate the value of Sears securities.

The allegations of the complaint focus on Sears' credit card operations, which (until Sears sold its credit card operations in 2003) managed one of the largest credit card businesses in the U.S., and which had issued billions of dollars' worth of credit to holders of Sears' traditional private label store credit card and to holders of Sears' more recently introduced general purpose credit card.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the class period, the defendants concealed material adverse information concerning the financial condition, performance and prospects of Sears' credit card operations, and that defendants issued a series of falsely positive statements in which, inter alia, they allegedly:

-- misrepresented the performance and quality of Sears' credit card operations and concealed the deteriorating condition of those operations;

-- misled the investing public into believing that the delinquency and charge-off rates of Sears' credit card products were comparable to, or better than, those of other leading credit card issuers; and

The complaint alleges that these alleged material misrepresentations and omissions caused Sears' public statements issued during the Class Period to be materially false and misleading, in violation of the federal securities laws.

The complaint further alleges that Lead Plaintiff and other class members purchased Sears securities during the class period at prices artificially inflated as a result of the Defendants' dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding Sears, allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The defendants deny all allegations of misconduct contained in the complaint, and deny having engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever.

The defendants maintain that the allegedly false and misleading statements were truthful and not misleading, and that all material facts were disclosed. In addition, the defendants have asserted numerous affirmative defenses.

On July 16, 2003, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. By Order dated Oct. 23, 2003, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. This ruling assumed the truth of the allegations of the complaint and did not make factual findings.

Since November 2003, when the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, the parties have engaged in extensive discovery proceedings relating to the claims asserted in the complaint.

During this period, Sears produced to the lead plaintiff and its counsel over 4.5 million pages of documents and 1.45 gigabytes of electronic data files, which included voluminous internal Sears emails and data relating to Sears' credit card operations.

In addition, plaintiffs' counsel obtained and reviewed approximately 50,000 additional pages of documents that it subpoenaed from over a dozen third parties (including Sears outside auditors) relating to Sears' credit card operations.

Plaintiffs' counsel also took numerous depositions of current or former officers, directors and/or employees of Sears, including the most senior executives in Sears' credit card business during the class period.

Plaintiff's counsel also consulted extensively, over a more than two-year period, with experts in the credit card industry concerning the evidence developed in the course of pre-trial discovery.

Throughout the litigation, Sears and the other defendants have vigorously disputed plaintiffs' allegations that Sears or the individual defendants made any public statements that misrepresented the financial condition or performance of Sears' credit card operations.

In addition, defendants assert that all of their public statements were truthful and made in good faith, and deny that any such statements were made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth (as is required to establish liability), and deny that any member of the class was harmed by them or their actions in any way.

In the spring of 2006, lead plaintiff (the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division ofInvestment) and plaintiffs' counsel reached an agreement in principle with defendants and defendants' counsel on the terms of the settlement discussed in this notice, subject to court approval.

The settlement in principle was reached only after lengthy mediation proceedings supervised by a retired federal district court judge.

The court in this action did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or in favor of defendants. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement.

That way, both sides avoid the inherent risks and significant additional costs of a trial and any appeals, and Class Members who suffered losses on their transactions in Sears securities during the class period will get compensation.

The lead plaintiff and its counsel believe, after weighing the risks and opportunities of further litigation against the benefits of the proposed $215 million settlement (which, in addition, requires defendants to pay for all reasonable costs and expenses of class notice and settlement administration), that the proposed settlement represents a significant recovery for the class and is the best interests of all class members.

SILICON LABORATORIES: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against Silicon Laboratories, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 23, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On Dec. 6, 2001, a class action complaint for violations of U.S. federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, four officers individually and the three investment banking firms who served as representatives of the underwriters in connection with the company's initial public offering of common stock.

A consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the company's initial public offering did not disclose that:

-- the underwriters solicited and received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors; and

-- the underwriters had agreed to allocate shares of the offering in exchange for a commitment from the customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined higher prices.

The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. A court order dated Oct. 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice the four officers of the company who had been named individually.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the company. On Oct. 13, 2004, the court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases.

Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Silicon Laboratories case. The underwriter defendants have appealed the class certification decision and the Second Circuit has accepted the appeal.

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between the company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300-issuer defendants.

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the company and the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.

The company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the company may have against its underwriters.

The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers' settlement agreement.

To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference.

The company anticipates that its potential financial obligation to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and related agreements will be covered by existing insurance.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. Those modifications have been made.

On March 20, 2006, the underwriter defendants submitted objections to the settlement to the court. The court held a hearing regarding these and other objections to the settlement at a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006, but has not issued a ruling yet. There is no assurance that the court will grant final approval to the settlement.

STATE FARM: Settles Credit Score Litigation in Hawaii For $1.2M---------------------------------------------------------------State Farm Insurance reached a tentative $1.2 million settlement in a class action over credit scores that lawyers contend were improperly used to set rates for Hawaii customers, The Pacific Business News reports.

According to plaintiffs' attorneys, the lawsuit resulted in premium refunds being paid to 1,396 of the total of 1,681 people who are part of the case.

Jim Bickerton, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, added that though the remaining 285 others with claims totaling $174,494 were not found they might still claim their checks from State Farm.

Commenting on the settlement, Mr. Bickerton said that he and his clients were "extremely pleased" that the case resulted in a full refund to State Farm policy members whose credit reports were misused.

The lawsuit had alleged that State Farm improperly used credit scores to set insurance rates, which violates Hawaii law. Jeff Crabtree, who also represented class members, pointed out "Hawaii law is absolutely clear -- an insurance company cannot set rates for auto insurance using credit scores."

TITLE INSURERS: Sued Over Employment of Out-of-State Agents-----------------------------------------------------------Attorney John Q. Gale filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against ten title insurance companies over alleged unlawful use of out-of-state closing service vendors that don't qualify under state law as "title agents" to provide services traditionally performed by attorneys and grandfathered-in title agents, the Courthouse News Service Reports.

Named defendants are:

-- Chicago Title Insurance, -- Commonwealth Land Title Insurance, -- Fidelity National Title Insurance, -- First American Title Insurance, -- Lawyers Title Insurance, -- Old Republic National Title Insurance, -- Stewart Title Guaranty, -- Ticor Title Insurance, -- Ticor Title Insurance Co. of Florida, and -- Transnation Title Insurance.

The proposed class action accuses the title insurers of splitting insurance premiums with the closing service vendors, which in turn provide title examinations, title opinions, document preparation, notary and document-filing services.

"Defendants have engaged in this behavior, specifically prohibited by statute, because it enables them to capitalize on valuable referral relationships and thereby capture more revenue," the complaint states.

Mr. Gale claims the title insurers' actions have "resulted in closing Connecticut lawyers out of the title insurance practice area and in creating a new world of unlicensed, illegal title agents engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, systematically depriving consumers of the protections accorded them by statute."

The complaint also accuses the insurers of diverting business from Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Co. (CATIC), which is a bar-related title insurance underwriter. This title agency is owned and controlled by attorneys and operates primarily through lawyers who issue title policies.

Connecticut requires title insurance as a prerequisite to financing, with state-licensed attorneys as agents. But during the recent home price boom, "as refinancings have become a more common phenomenon, a greater number of the lenders and mortgage brokers providing or offering financing are located outside of the State of Connecticut.

These out-of-state lenders and brokers have turned to closing service vendors to provide a single source for closing real estate transactions, including refinancings.

These closing service vendors, in turn, have supplanted Connecticut attorneys and the grandfathered-in title agents (people who held a valid title insurance license on June 12, 1984) at closing," the suit states.

The closing service vendors are writing title insurance illegally, as they are not qualified for it in Connecticut, and the defendant companies are splitting fees with them, also illegally, as a lure, the suit states.

Common questions of law and fact common to members in the class predominate over any questions affecting individual members include:

-- whether defendants, by failing to use plaintiff and the class members as title agents as defined by Connecticut General Statutes Section 38a-402(13), and engaging in acts violating Connecticut Statutes Sections 38a-407 and 28a-414, engaged in unfair competition and or deceptive practices; and

-- whether the elements of the claim for torious interference with business expectancies are satisfied in this case.

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Court Grants Temporary Stay in Lights Ruling----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay in all proceedings in the Schwab class action until the three-judge panel reviews the issues involved on Dec. 5, the English Business News reports.

Earlier, Philip Morris USA and other defendants asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Oct. 3, 2006, to stay all proceedings in the Schwab class action and to allow an immediate appeal of the class certification ruling in the case by U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2006).

Morgan Stanley analyst, David Adelman, said that panel will then decide whether to grant a longer-term stay of the case while it considers a lower court's decision to certify the case, named after lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab, as a class action.

At the moment, it is still unclear whether the court will take up the matter of the class certification decision, the report said.

A copy of the court order was not readily available.

In September, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York certified a class that permits Americans who currently smoke, or ever did smoke "light" cigarettes, to proceed to trial with their claims that the tobacco companies conspired for decades to deceive the public regarding the health risks associated with light cigarettes (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).

The Schwab case, filed in 2004 by lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab, alleged that cigarette manufacturers violated the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act by conspiring to mislead smokers into the health effects of their product.

Defendants maintained that the "light" or "lights" descriptor refer to taste, but plaintiffs argued they were fraudulently intended to convey to the smoker that 'light' cigarettes were not as harmful to health as 'regular' cigarettes.

The suit seeks economic damages, rather than compensation for death or disease caused by smoking, of between $120 billion and $200 billion.

The suit is "Schwab v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein, with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Directors Dismissed in Mass. Stock Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the complaint against the director defendant in the consolidated securities fraud class action against Transkaryotic Therapies Inc.

In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported class actions against:

-- TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005; and

-- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer.

The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the period from January 2001 through January 2003. Each of the complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during that period.

On March 25, 2003, motions were filed with the court to appoint lead plaintiff, lead counsel and for consolidation of all related cases.

The court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on April 9, 2003 and, subsequently, consolidated all cases into one class action lawsuit entitled, "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation."

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint against:

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint on Sept. 17, 2003, which lead plaintiffs opposed October 31, 2003. On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments regarding the motions to dismiss and took these motions under advisement.

Thereafter on May 26, 2004 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants motions to dismiss. Defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint on July 16, 2004.

On July 23, 2004 lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which defendants opposed. Both parties have provided briefs to the court regarding class certification.

In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On June 5, 2006 the Judge dismissed the complaint against the Director Defendants, according to information posted at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W. Zobel.

UNITED PARCEL: Faces Litigation Over Brokerage Fees in Canada-------------------------------------------------------------British Columbia lawyer Jim Poyner, on behalf of Robert Macfarlane, filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against United Parcel Service over alleged hidden brokerage fees, The Canadian Press reports.

The lawsuit accuses UPS of misleading and deceptive practices by failing to get the consumer's consent, not telling the consumer about the fee and not allowing the consumer to arrange their own customs clearance.

The suit claims the UPS brokerage fee is "so harsh and adverse as to constitute an unconscionable practice."

Mr. Macfarlane does not only want his own money back, but the suit seeks remuneration for everyone who paid the fee.

The suit asks for punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages.

Mr. Poyner expects hundreds of thousands of people have been in the same situation across the country and there are plans to file a similar lawsuit in Ontario.

He added that the other major goal of such a lawsuit is what the court calls "behavior modification."

In one of 10 remedies requested in Mr. Macfarlane's statement of claim, it asks for a permanent injunction stopping UPS from continuing to charge the fee, the report said.

The suit stemmed from Mr. Macfarlane's purchase of an amplified telephone device from Arizona over the Internet last year. He knew he would have to pay shipping and handling fees and government levies, but he was also ordered to pay a $38.40 brokerage fee charged by UPS.

According to Mr. Poyner, it's a surcharge that nobody agrees to, nobody knows anything about until the delivery person is at the door.

Christina Falcone, a spokeswoman for UPS defended the brokerage fees the company charges saying the fees add up to the service provided.

"We're paying Canada Customs duties and taxes and other preparation fees before we collect any fee from the customer," she claimed.

Ms. Falcone added that it is the shippers' job to inform customers about the brokerage fee.

UNITED STATES: Cedar Fire Victims File Negligence Suit in Calif.---------------------------------------------------------------- Several victims of the 2003 Cedar Fire in California are suing the U.S. government for negligence in controlling the fire once it began and for allowing it to enter into plaintiffs' properties.

They are suing on behalf of themselves and a class of persons who owned property located in and around the County of San Diego whose real and/or personal property was damaged and/or destroyed as a result of the Cedar Fire on Oct. 25, 2003.

The Cleveland National Forest consists of 460,000 acres of varying terrain and is the southernmost National Forest in the state of California.

On Oct. 25, 2003, a West Covina man, Sergio Martinez, set a signal fire Oct. 25, 2003, after getting lost while hunting deer for the first time in a remote area of the national forest.

The fire spread and over the course of five days, it became what has been determined to be the largest fire in California history.

The Cedar Fire burned more than 273,000 acres, 2,232 residences, 22 commercial structures, 566 outbuildings and took the lives of 14 civilians and one firefighter.

The plaintiffs are asking $236,890,648.00 in compensation for destruction and/or damage to property, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The suit, CV2342, was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

UNITED STATES: Web Site Revamp Mulled as Target Case Proceeds------------------------------------------------------------- Some online retailers are rethinking their Web sites in light of a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that says they must be more accessible to the blind, according to Fox News.

The decision came in the purported class action, "National Federation of the Blind, et al. v. Target Corp.," which charges that Target's website -- http://www.target.com-- is inaccessible to the blind, and therefore violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 12, 2006).

The company asked the court to dismiss the action by arguing that no law requires it to make its Web site accessible. But, the court denied the motion to dismiss and held that the federal and state civil rights laws do apply to a website such as Target.com.

The suit, which sought class action status, was filed on behalf of all blind Americans who are being denied access to target.com. The named plaintiffs are the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), the NFB of California, and Bruce Sexton, Jr., a blind University of California-Berkeley student.

The NFB originally filed the lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court, claiming that the giant retail chain discriminates since its Web site is inaccessible to blind customers (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2006).

The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.

NFB president Dr. Marc Maurer acknowledged the ruling as "a great victory for blind people throughout the country." He says that his group is very pleased "that the court recognized that the blind are entitled to equal access to retail websites."

Dr. Maurer revealed that they tried to convince the company that it should do the right thing and make its website accessible through negotiations, but the company took the position that it does not have to take the rights of the blind into account.

He also adds that with the ruling other companies are put on notice that the blind cannot be treated like second-class citizens on the Internet or in any other sphere.

The suit charges that Web sites' tags are sometimes misleading or incorrect. It also charges that sometimes it missing entirely.

The retail giant had sought to have the case thrown out on the grounds that its site didn't constitute a "place" and, as such, was not covered by disability-access laws.

However, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel disagreed and in a Sept. 9 opinion that allowed the case to proceed said, "to limit the ADA to discrimination in the provision of services occurring on the premises of a public accommodation would contradict the plain language of that statute."

Despite the ruling, which applies only to businesses with both online and brick-and-mortar outlets, Judge Patel rejected a request for a preliminary injunction that would have required Target to update its site immediately.

The judge reasoned that more time was needed to weigh the retailer's claim that its site was already accessible to the average blind person.

The lawsuit against the company is expected to be heard in the coming months.

The suit is "National Federation of the Blind et al. v. Target Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-01802-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

VISA U.S.A.: Publishes "Interchange Fees" List For Credit Cards---------------------------------------------------------------Visa U.S.A., Inc., published a list of "interchange fees" it charges merchants to process their credit and debit cards when customers make transactions with plastic, Martin H. Bosworth of ConsumerAffairs.Com reports.

The fees are often called a "hidden tax on consumers," as they can drive up the price of goods and services without consumers' knowledge.

It's these interchange fees that have led a coalition of merchants and retailers to file lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard, and their partner banks, over what the merchants call collusive price-fixing.

The interchange fee list, whose publication was considered by observers as an unusual step on Visa's part, is available as a PDF report. It is an array of "performance thresholds" and "reimbursement fees" that seems to require a degree in calculus to understand.

The basic gist is that different cards and different purchases end up costing merchants different fees to process, ranging from 1 to 2 percent of the transaction plus change.

Factoring in the billions of credit and debit transactions that go on in the world daily, 1 percent of a purchase can add up to millions in revenue for banks and card companies. In addition, it can wipe out the retailer's profit from a transaction.

To make a profit, merchants will often raise prices on their goods and services, even for those who pay exclusively with cash.

Though the Merchant Payments Coalition (MPC) hailed the move, it pointed out that it wasn't enough to simply reveal the fees. The group, which representing retail and restaurant chains, pointed out that more transparency was needed in the business.

According to MPC chairman Mallory Duncan, the report shows a bewildering array of rates for different cards, merchants and types of transactions, which emphasizes the opacity of interchange.

Mr. Duncan also noted the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the poor disclosure of credit card fees to consumers, saying it was "no surprise" that merchant fees would be similarly hard to understand.

Visa had originally claimed it would not publish its interchange fee rates, but after chief rival MasterCard agreed to do so in an attempt to appease the merchants suing the company, the company decided to go public with their own list.

Visa recently announced its own initial public stock offering, after eyeing the success of MasterCard's debut on the market. The MasterCard IPO is chiefly designed to build a "war chest" of funds to pay for litigation and settlements in the merchant lawsuits, thereby shifting the risk to investors rather than the member banks that formerly owned MasterCard.

Mitch Goldstone, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class-action merchant cases, said on his blog (http://www.waytoohigh.com)that Visa and MasterCard should post the exact interchange fee of each transaction on the customer's receipt.

Without an honest and straightforward posting, the hidden tax will continue to feed Visa and MasterCards' member banks with thirty billion dollars each year, Mr. Goldstone explained.

In 2005, U.S. retailers and various trade groups filed several lawsuits that accuse credit card associations and issuing banks of colluding to set artificially high interchange fees, the fees the merchants pay to credit card banks. It was the latest in a series of legal attacks on Visa and others by merchants who object to rising fees (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006).

Eventually, those suits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-JO."

In the case, plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

California-based Visa U.S.A. -- http://usa.visa.com/-- is the U.S. arm of credit and debit card firm Visa International, which has recently announced plans to merge with Visa U.S.A. and Visa Canada to form Visa, Inc. Some 14,000 U.S. financial institution members comprise Visa U.S.A. and more than 300 million Visa-brand check, commercial, credit, prepaid, and smart cards are carried by U.S. consumers. Its consumer credit card options range from the Visa Classic to the Visa Infinite and include literally thousands of co-branded and affinity cards.

WORLDCOM INC: Defrauded Investors to Get Initial $150M Payout -------------------------------------------------------------Thousands of individual investors who were victimized in the massive WorldCom financial fraud will soon receive up to $150 million from a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fund set up to help compensate investors for their losses, the SEC announces.

The SEC's ability to return penalty money directly to fraud victims is a new authority granted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Under Section 308 of the Act, the entire $750 million penalty that the SEC obtained from WorldCom was paid into a "Fair Fund" when the reorganized company emerged from bankruptcy protection in April 2004. All of that money is earmarked for return to injured investors.

On Oct. 19, the U.S. District Court overseeing the SEC litigation against WorldCom cleared the way for the first installment of distributions, now that a sufficient number of claims have been processed.

"This most recent success of the Fair Funds process will play an important role in encouraging investors to continue to place trust in America's capital markets," said Chairman Cox. "It shows that even when things go terribly wrong, there is a safety net for injured investors. Fair Funds are particularly useful when, as here, the investors who have lost money can be identified, and their financial losses can be calculated. And while tracking down WorldCom's investors in 110 countries isn't easy, the ultimate result will be that three quarters of a billion dollars will be returned to its rightful owners."

During the period covered by the fraud, WorldCom had 34 different publicly traded securities, and over 32 billion shares of its common stock were traded. Investors in 110 countries made nearly 450,000 claims to the Fair Fund -- in 10 languages -- related to approximately 9.4 million transactions in those securities.

The initial $150 million distribution approved by the court covers claims processed to date, including most of those filed by individual investors. Subsequent distributions will be made as the remaining claims are processed.

"I am delighted that individual investors will soon begin receiving their checks," said Peter H. Bresnan, Deputy Director of Enforcement. "I would like to thank the Court, as well as the Distribution Agent, former SEC Chairman Richard Breeden, for the tremendous work that he and his team have done in implementing the distribution and assisting victims of WorldCom's massive fraud."

The Commission sued WorldCom on June 26, 2002, the day after the company disclosed it had made massive misstatements on its financial statements for the preceding five fiscal quarters.

In July 2003, the District Court entered a final judgment ordering WorldCom to pay a civil penalty. Pursuant to the Commission's request, this penalty was placed in a Fair Fund for the benefit of WorldCom's investor victims.

The "Fair Funds for Investors" provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made it possible for all fines obtained in SEC enforcement actions to be distributed to investor victims. By law prior to 2002, all civil penalties obtained by the SEC in securities enforcement actions were deposited in the general fund of the U.S. Treasury.

Questions regarding the WorldCom Fair Funds distribution may be directed to the Distribution Agent at the WorldCom Victim Trust, P.O. Box 6970, Syracuse, NY 13217, via telephone at (866) 894-8871 or on the web at http://www.worldcomvictimtrust.com/

A consolidated, certified class action is being prosecuted on behalf of a court-certified class of all individuals or entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of WorldCom, Inc. from April 29, 1999 through and including June 25, 2002, and who were injured thereby. The "WorldCom, Inc., Securities Litigation 02-Civ. 3288" -- http://www.worldcomlitigation.com-- is pending in the Southern District of New York before District Court Judge Denise L. Cote.

Last month, the Alexandria, Virginia-based IIABA filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, opposing certain aspects of the company's multistate settlement reached in March.

Specifically, the IIABA stated concerns about the mandatory disclosure statement contained in the settlement. According to the IIABA, that disclosure statement will inhibit communication with customers and increase customer confusion regarding incentive compensation.

The IIABA said it believes that the company, not the agents and brokers, should have the responsibility for providing policyholders with any required compensation disclosure form.

Class plaintiffs and 10 attorneys general opposed IIABA's brief, citing that it was filed prematurely and should have been reserved for the final fairness hearings.

However, in a press statement announcing the brief's filing, the association said that it was not party to the settlement negotiations with Schaumburg, Illinois-based Zurich and therefore had no opportunity to raise concerns over the mandatory disclosure form contained in the multistate settlement.

According to IIABA President Alex Soto, their amicus brief "provides the court with important information about the negative consequences consumers and insurance brokers and agents will experience if the court approves the portion of the proposed Zurich settlement requiring brokers and agents to provide their customers with Zurich's mandatory disclosure form."

Generally, Mr. Soto explained in a previous press statement, "IIABA supports transparency in insurance transactions, but is opposed to the portion of the settlement that would require independent insurance agents and brokers to implement for Zurich its obligation under the settlement to provide to insureds a form describing the company's practices in compensating agents and brokers," (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006)

A similar brief was filed last month in opposition to the National Assn. of Professional Insurance Agents' similar amicus brief opposing certain aspects of Zurich's proposed settlement.

In a reply brief filed with the Court on Oct. 6, 2006, PIA National answered the objections of ten state Attorneys General who are formally opposing PIA's effort to get the court to consider its brief of amicus curiae that the association filed on Sept. 15, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2006).

PIA is asking for a delay on preliminary approval of the class settlement until "flaws" in the mandatory disclosure statement are corrected.

The PIA also objects to the curtailing of certain contingent commission payments contained in Zurich's and other proposed settlements, which the association said would create "disparate impact on PIA members' livelihoods."

Settlement Agreement

In March, Zurich Financial Services Group (Zurich) announced that Zurich American Insurance Co. and its subsidiaries (ZAIC) reached settlements with nine state attorneys general and one insurance commissioner relating to their industry-wide investigations into broker compensation and insurance placement practices (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2006).

The agreements call for total payments of $171.7 million and require the implementation of new disclosure and compliance regimes. ZAIC did not admit to any violation of U.S. federal or state laws as part of the settlements.

The Multi-State Agreement increases the $100 million settlement fund amount set forth in the memorandum of understanding (MOU) to a total of $151.7 million, and requires ZAIC to pay $20 million for state fees and costs.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners' Broker Activities Task Force (NAIC Task Force) assisted in developing a regulatory settlement agreement with ZAIC that the insurance commissioner from Florida has now executed.

The NAIC Task Force supported this settlement as a sound regulatory framework, and had urged all state insurance regulators to consider joining it.

Some of these settlements are dependent on court approvals, as well as various other conditions.

The nine state attorneys general who have executed settlement agreements with ZAIC as part of the Multi-State Agreement are those from California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia.

The Multi-State Agreement will work in conjunction with a proposed settlement between ZAIC and plaintiffs in a nationwide class action against commercial insurers and brokers that is pending in the U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey.

In October 2005, ZAIC and lead plaintiffs in the class action entered into the MOU that sets out the principal terms of settlement of that action.

* Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein to Open Lieff Global Jan. 1----------------------------------------------------------------Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP will open on Jan. 1, 2007, Lieff Global, LLP, a firm that will represent survivors and families of victims who died in domestic and international aviation and maritime accidents, as well as foreign citizens in other types of actions. Lieff Cabraser and Lieff Global will jointly litigate such actions. Robert L. Lieff, founder of Lieff Cabraser, will direct Lieff Global and will become Of Counsel to Lieff Cabraser. He will remain located in Lieff Cabraser's San Francisco offices, and the firm name will remain unchanged.

"I take great pride in having founded Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein thirty-four years ago and overseen its growth into one of the premier plaintiffs law firms in the United States," stated Mr. Lieff. "Throughout my legal career I have advanced the rights of plaintiffs, both in America and abroad, and worked to create a global network of lawyers committed to this principle. Lieff Global will allow me to concentrate on promoting access to justice on a worldwide scale."

"Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein is excited to participate in the creation of Lieff Global," commented Steven E. Fineman, managing partner of Lieff Cabraser. "Lieff Cabraser's strength as one of the largest and most accomplished law firms in the United States combined with Lieff Global's international expertise and international network of lawyers will enable the firms to jointly litigate against the largest and most powerful corporations in the world in aviation cases and actions for non-U.S. citizens."

"Robert Lieff has been my mentor for my entire professional career," stated Lieff Cabraser partner, Elizabeth J. Cabraser. "For more than three decades our firm has been committed to redressing corporate misconduct, achieving justice for investors, consumers and employees, promoting safer products and aviation safety, and protecting our environment and the human rights of citizens worldwide. That has been the hallmark of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, and will remain so."

According to Mr. Lieff, Lieff Global will include, in addition to himself, two present Lieff Cabraser associates Lexi Hazam and David Fiol. Nigel Taylor who is presently "Of Counsel" to Lieff Cabraser will become "Of Counsel" to Lieff Global. "No other Lieff Cabraser partners will be leaving to join Lieff Global. I do, however, intend to hire additional attorneys as needed," stated Mr. Lieff.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP -- http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a sixty-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, Beverly Hills and Nashville. Lieff Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice that is unique among law firms that represent only plaintiffs. The firm's cases typically involve dangerous or defective products, securities and investment fraud, consumer fraud and false advertising, employment discrimination and unlawful employment practices, aviation disasters, environmental damage and toxic exposures, antitrust and ERISA violations and the abuse of human and civil rights.

For the last four years, The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.

PRESSTEK INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------Federman & Sherwood announces that on Oct. 10, 2006, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire against Presstek, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from July 27, 2006 through Sept. 29, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Dec. 18, 2006for appointment as lead plaintiff for the class.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.